Truly Neutral USA in WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

To further the general debate about the US contribution to the war effort in WW1:
What if the US remained completely neutral and didn't allow the Entente to raise credit in the US or allow them to buy war materials as defined by London Declaration? Let's say that selling bonds to private citizens is not forbidden, but banks and other financial institutions are forbidden from purchasing them.
I realize this is hard to pull off, but as the US senate ratified the treaty, regardless of its wider acceptance in the world, the US was bound by it. Assuming Wilson abided by it, what would the effect have been on the war?
As it was the US provided $2Billion in 1914 value dollars to the Entente from August 1914- April 1917.
Beyond that the Entente also made large purchases of cotton, unfilled shells, explosives, and various bullets from the US. While not decisive in absolute terms the Entente would be weaker without the money and goods. Some could be purchased elsewhere, but it would not be to the same scale as OTL purchases. That means in relation to the 1914-1917 period the Entente would have significantly fewer shells and other explosives than historical and could potentially exhaust their funds earlier without US capital. This probably means fewer German losses and a weaker Entente war effort overall, perhaps changing certain battles like Verdun and the Somme due to lack of money/materials. Also the Entente artillery/aircraft advantage would not be nearly as pronounced early on.
One final and crucial loss would be of US machinery to manufacture war materials, which the Entente purchased a fair bit of OTL, which here means that the French and British will have a harder time building shells and bullets than OTL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_London
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm


CONTRABAND OF WAR
Art. 22. The following articles may, without notice (*), be treated as contraband of war, under the name of absolute contraband:
(1) Arms of all kinds, including arms for sporting purposes, and their distinctive component parts. (2) Projectiles, charges, and cartridges of all kinds, and their distinctive component parts. (3) Powder and explosives specially prepared for use in war.
(4) Gun-mountings, limber boxes, limbers, military waggons, field forges, and their distinctive component parts.
(5) Clothing and equipment of a distinctively military character.
(6) All kinds of harness of a distinctively military character.
(7) Saddle, draught, and pack animals suitable for use in war.
(8) Articles of camp equipment, and their distinctive component parts.
(9) Armour plates.
(10)Warships, including boats, and their distinctive component parts of such a nature that they can only be used on a vessel of war.
(11)Implements and apparatus designed exclusively for the manufacture of munitions of war, for the manufacture or repair of arms, or war material for use on land or sea.

Art. 23. Articles exclusively used for war may be added to the list of absolute contraband by a declaration, which must be notified.

Such notification must be addressed to the Governments of other Powers, or to their representatives accredited to the Power making the declaration. A notification made after the outbreak of hostilities is addressed only to neutral Powers.

Art. 24. The following articles, susceptible of use in war as well as for purposes of peace, may, without notice (*), be treated as contraband of war, under the name of conditional contraband:

(1) Foodstuffs.
(2) Forage and grain, suitable for feeding animals. (3) Clothing, fabrics for clothing, and boots and shoes, suitable for use in war.
(4) Gold and silver in coin or bullion; paper money. (5) Vehicles of all kinds available for use in war, and their component parts.
(6) Vessels, craft, and boats of all kinds; floating docks, parts of docks and their component parts. (7) Railway material, both fixed and rolling-stock, and material for telegraphs, wireless telegraphs, and telephones.
(8) Balloons and flying machines and their distinctive component parts, together with accessories and articles recognizable as intended for use in connection with balloons and flying machines. (9) Fuel; lubricants.
(10)Powder and explosives not specially prepared for use in war.
(11)Barbed wire and implements for fixing and cutting the same.
(12)Horseshoes and shoeing materials.
(13)Harness and saddlery.
(14)Field glasses, telescopes, chronometers, and all kinds of nautical instruments.

Art. 25. Articles susceptive of use in war as well as for purposes of peace, other than those enumerated in Articles 22 and 24, may be added to the list of conditional contraband by a declaration, which must be notified in the manner provided for in the second paragraph of Article 23.

Art. 26. If a Power waives, so far as it is concerned, the right to treat as contraband of war an article comprised in any of the classes enumerated in Articles 22 and 24, such intention shall be announced by a declaration, which must be notified in the manner provided for in the second paragraph of Article 23.

Art. 27. Articles which are not susceptible of use in war may not be declared contraband of war.

Art. 28. The following may not be declared contraband of war:

(1) Raw cotton, wool, silk, jute, flax, hemp, and other raw materials of the textile industries, and yarns of the same.
(2) Oil seeds and nuts; copra.
(3) Rubber, resins, gums, and lacs; hops.
(4) Raw hides and horns, bones, and ivory. (5) Natural and artificial manures, including nitrates and phosphates for agricultural purposes. (6) Metallic ores.
(7) Earths, clays, lime, chalk, stone, including marble, bricks, slates, and tiles.
(8) Chinaware and glass.
(9) Paper and paper-making materials.
(10)Soap, paint and colours, including articles exclusively used in their manufacture, and varnish.
(11)Bleaching powder, soda ash, caustic soda, salt cake, ammonia, sulphate of ammonia, and sulphate of copper.
(12)Agricultural, mining, textile, and printing machinery.
(13)Precious and semi-precious stones, pearls, mother-of-pearl, and coral.
(14)Clocks and watches, other than chronometers. (15)Fashion and fancy goods.
(16)Feathers of all kinds, hairs, and bristles. (17)Articles of household furniture and decoration; office furniture and requisites.

Art. 29. Likewise the following may not be treated as contraband of war:

(1) Articles serving exclusively to aid the sick and wounded. They can, however, in case of urgent military necessity and subject to the payment of compensation, be requisitioned, if their destination is that specified in Article 30. (2) Articles intended for the use of the vessel in which they are found, as well as those intended for the use of her crew and passengers during the voyage.

Art. 30. Absolute contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined to territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or to the armed forces of the enemy. It is immaterial whether the carriage of the goods is direct or entails transhipment or a subsequent transport by land.

Art. 31. Proof of the destination specified in Article 30 is complete in the following cases:

(1) When the goods are documented for discharge in an enemy port, or for delivery to the armed forces of the enemy.
(2) When the vessel is to call at enemy ports only, or when she is to touch at a enemy port or meet the armed forces of the enemy before reaching the neutral port for which the goods in question are documented.
[/SIZE]
 
I'm almost sure it's been well established that no U.S. involvement almost certainly results in either a CP win or a painful draw that is ultimately less favorable to the Entente. That being said, are you asking for cultural, economic, or socio-political changes post-WW1 at home or abroad as a result of this outcome?
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm almost sure it's been well established that no U.S. involvement almost certainly results in either a CP win or a painful draw that is ultimately less favorable to the Entente. That being said, are you asking for cultural, economic, or socio-political changes post-WW1 at home or abroad as a result of this outcome?

That and how the course of the war changes.
 
The Entente would of still won the first world war without the assistance of the United States for several reasons

- The United Kingdom and France were already pushing forward with several offensive plans before the United States participated in the first battles.

- The German Empire was being starved into submission. The Royal Navy made sure that no supplies go through and the German Navy could not break the blockade even with several attempts.

- The Austrian Empire was in an even worse state. It could not even supply it's soldiers with decent food let alone the population. They were losing against Serbia being supported by the United Kingdom and France several offensives were being made and they were winning.

- The Ottoman Empire was falling apart. After the capture of several important religious sites the Ottoman Empire was dead.

More people would of died and the war would of carried on for several years. Perhaps this increased bloodshed and horror could of killed Adolf Hitler and following events would never take place.
 
But this is more than just the US sending soldiers into battle, this is the US also not giving the Entente all those loans and supplies.

And the blockade on Germany didn't really get truly effective until the US Navy got thrown into the mix.

German U-Boats were also inflicting a nasty toll on the British Isles with their own supply interdiction from what I've heard.
 
Also, wouldn't a True neutral U.S. keep trading with the Netherlands? Who would then be able to trade with Germany?
 
Well no american troops in Europe and the Spanish flu is (hopefully) limited to the North America, remember this epidemic caused more death than the war
 
There's a rather profound conceptual error at work here and one that renders this thread entirely moot.

The London Declaration listed goods and materials which one combatant could attempt to prevent another combatant from importing by imposing a blockade. There was nothing in the London Declaration which prevented third parties from selling the listed goods to combatants.

A combatant could buy whatever they wished wherever they wished from whomever they wished and then try to import that material past another combatant's blockade. If the combatant imposing the blockade detected the listed goods, they could then legally seize them under international law. Once goods are purchased it then becomes the blockading combatant's job as the blockading power to identify which goods were listed on the London Declaration and seize them.

You paid your money and you took your risks.

Germany's blockade of the Entente didn't attempt to identify and seize goods, it merely destroyed all suspect goods - and the ships carrying them - instead. The Entente's blockade of Germany, on the other hand, did identify goods and seize them. The US ambassador explained the difference to the Kaiser as the difference between someone breaking into your home and killing a relative versus someone walking through your flower beds.

The Entente was able to purchase goods from the US because the Entente was able to reliably import goods from the US through Germany's blockade. The Entente raised loans in the US because the Entente spent most of those loans in the US. Germany couldn't import goods reliably through the Entente blockade so Germany didn't bother to purchase goods from the US. Because Germany couldn't import goods and thus didn't purchase goods, Germany didn't have any need to raise loans in the US. Money in a US bank did Germany no good because it couldn't be used for anything.

So, it wasn't a case of a biased US "only" selling and lending to the Entente as too many Central Powers fanboys and other apologists would like to think. It was a case of the Entente being the US' primary customer for goods and credit because only the Entente could reliably bring home what they bought.

Need an example? How about the Deutschland? She made two blockade busting cruises in 1916 for Germany carrying out millions in trade goods and returning with millions in vital war materials. In each trip, US firms were happy to buy her goods and sell her captain whatever he wanted in return. The Germans even made arrangements to build more cargo subs in the US yards and US companies were happy to take those orders too.

If you want the Central Powers to be able to import goods as readily as the Entente, you'll have to change to geography of Europe to make it easier for the Central Powers to import goods. Misunderstanding the London Declaration won't work and neither will having the US pass the Neutrality Acts two decades in advance as that legislation was a result of the public's disappointment with WW1.
 

Deleted member 1487

Also, wouldn't a True neutral U.S. keep trading with the Netherlands? Who would then be able to trade with Germany?

I didn't even think about this aspect of the war...neutral transhipments. Would the US allow shipments to neutral powers that are obviously much more than the nation usually orders and probably will be sold to a belligerent. Both sides could take advantage of this illegal practice and the US might overlook it, but if not then things change for Germany too. Both sides would be hurt by the restrictions to a degree, but both powers could still buy food from the US, which IIRC was the primary transhipment item through the Netherlands for Germany.
 

Deleted member 1487

There's a rather profound conceptual error at work here and one that renders this thread entirely moot.

The London Declaration listed goods and materials which one combatant could attempt to prevent another combatant from importing by imposing a blockade. There was nothing in the London Declaration which prevented third parties from selling the listed goods to combatants.

A combatant could buy whatever they wished wherever they wished from whomever they wished and then try to import that material past another combatant's blockade. If the combatant imposing the blockade detected the listed goods, they could then legally seize them under international law. Once goods are purchased it then becomes the blockading combatant's job as the blockading power to identify which goods were listed on the London Declaration and seize them.

You paid your money and you took your risks.

Germany's blockade of the Entente didn't attempt to identify and seize goods, it merely destroyed all suspect goods - and the ships carrying them - instead. The Entente's blockade of Germany, on the other hand, did identify goods and seize them. The US ambassador explained the difference to the Kaiser as the difference between someone breaking into your home and killing a relative versus someone walking through your flower beds.

The Entente was able to purchase goods from the US because the Entente was able to reliably import goods from the US through Germany's blockade. The Entente raised loans in the US because the Entente spent most of those loans in the US. Germany couldn't import goods reliably through the Entente blockade so Germany didn't bother to purchase goods from the US. Because Germany couldn't import goods and thus didn't purchase goods, Germany didn't have any need to raise loans in the US. Money in a US bank did Germany no good because it couldn't be used for anything.

So, it wasn't a case of a biased US "only" selling and lending to the Entente as too many Central Powers fanboys and other apologists would like to think. It was a case of the Entente being the US' primary customer for goods and credit because only the Entente could reliably bring home what they bought.

Need an example? How about the Deutschland? She made two blockade busting cruises in 1916 for Germany carrying out millions in trade goods and returning with millions in vital war materials. In each trip, US firms were happy to buy her goods and sell her captain whatever he wanted in return. The Germans even made arrangements to build more cargo subs in the US yards and US companies were happy to take those orders too.

If you want the Central Powers to be able to import goods as readily as the Entente, you'll have to change to geography of Europe to make it easier for the Central Powers to import goods. Misunderstanding the London Declaration won't work and neither will having the US pass the Neutrality Acts two decades in advance as that legislation was a result of the public's disappointment with WW1.

I did not realize that was the understanding of the London Declaration. You are most certainly correct about the Deutschland, and I won't in that regard state that the US was biased in selling goods to the Entente (who also complained the US was selling to the Germans in 1914 before the blockade was really implemented).

However the loan issue of the thread is NOT necessarily moot.
Though we have been presented with a valid argument why the US wouldn't stop selling goods to the US, what if they blocked private US banks and credit institutions from making loans to warring parties to prevent the US economy being tied to one side or the other? This means nearly $2 Billion in loans ($43 Billion in 2010 value) aren't received. Everything has to be out of pocket.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=2,000,000&year1=1914&year2=2009
 
Would the US allow shipments to neutral powers that are obviously much more than the nation usually orders and probably will be sold to a belligerent.


You're getting it backwards again.

It was the Entente which worked to limit or prevent shipments through neutral nations and not a case of the US "allowing" such shipments or not. Once the goods were sold, the US didn't care.

You'll remember that the blockade on Germany tightened up tremendously after the US entered the war and was no longer the primary source for the many Germany-bound shipments which had been passing through neutral nations.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're getting it backwards again.

It was the Entente which worked to limit or prevent shipments through neutral nations and not a case of the US "allowing" such shipments or not. Once the goods were sold, the US didn't care.

You'll remember that the blockade on Germany tightened up tremendously after the US entered the war and was no longer the primary source for the many Germany-bound shipments which had been passing through neutral nations.

I didn't see your first post after I had already submitted mine. So now I'm on about the US government no allowing private institutions from making loans to warring powers to avoid potentially being beholden to one side's success. It becomes a cash and carry scenario.
 

elder.wyrm

Banned
However the loan issue of the thread is NOT necessarily moot.
Though we have been presented with a valid argument why the US wouldn't stop selling goods to the US, what if they blocked private US banks and credit institutions from making loans to warring parties to prevent the US economy being tied to one side or the other? This means nearly $2 Billion in loans ($43 Billion in 2010 value) aren't received. Everything has to be out of pocket.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=2,000,000&year1=1914&year2=2009

$2 billion that they didn't have, by the way. The Entente powers were financially bankrupt by 1916. No gold means no American war materials. No American war materials means the Entente war effort grinds to a halt within a year.

The war ends in a negotiated peace to Central Power advantage, but still with something more or less resembling status quo ante bellum.
 
However the loan issue of the thread is NOT necessarily moot.


Yes it is because you're suggesting something like the Neutrality Acts decades before they were passed and decades before the public perceptions which sparked their passage were even formed.

Though we have been presented with a valid argument why the US wouldn't stop selling goods to the US, what if they blocked private US banks and credit institutions from making loans to warring parties to prevent the US economy being tied to one side or the other?

So, the government is suddenly going to tell US businesses not to make tons of money on a foreign war which has nothing to do with the US? This is 1914 remember, not 2011.

In 1914 the US a debtor nation, in 1918 the US was a creditor nation, and the war was the reason. There isn't an electable administration which would have even attempted to tell the US businesses and banks that they couldn't make many money off the warring parties, there isn't an electable Congress which would have would have signed off on such regulations, and any administration and Congress which attempted to do so would be tossed out in 1916.

I explained in another thread why the Federal Reserve vetting of loans to the Entente wasn't some satanic plot by the US to shaft the Central Powers, I've explained in this thread why US firms selling goods to the Entente and US banks providing credit to the Entente wasn't a satanic plot to shaft the Central Powers, and the US making pots of money off a European war wasn't a satanic plot to shaft the Central Powers either.
 
I didn't see your first post after I had already submitted mine.


Same here. :eek:

So now I'm on about the US government no allowing private institutions from making loans to warring powers to avoid potentially being beholden to one side's success. It becomes a cash and carry scenario.

That's basically the Neutrality Acts. The thinking behind them and the public support for them won't be around until after WW1 when "everyone knew" that the US was suckered into fighting the war by bankers and armaments manufacturers.

You're going have to come up with something before 1914 which makes that "idea" appear earlier.
 
$2 billion that they didn't have, by the way. The Entente powers were financially bankrupt by 1916. No gold means no American war materials. No American war materials means the Entente war effort grinds to a halt within a year.

The war ends in a negotiated peace to Central Power advantage, but still with something more or less resembling status quo ante bellum.

Couldn't agree more. This is the most likely outcome IMHO.
 
$2 billion that they didn't have, by the way. The Entente powers were financially bankrupt by 1916. No gold means no American war materials. No American war materials means the Entente war effort grinds to a halt within a year.


Pretty much.

By late 1916 the Entente's "credit rating" had dropped significantly and the Federal Reserve was in the process of implementing regulations which basically amounted to much higher "collateral" requirements for any new lending to the Entente. The spigot from which US war materials wouldn't be immediately and completely closed as that would damage the US economy, but the Fed was looking into the future and beginning to arrange for the economic boom driven by Entente war spending to end in a "soft landing".

It's one of history's ironies that Germany could have seen it's desire to limit Entente imports achieved by standing pat rather than renewing USW. The perceived need to limit the importation of US war materials by re-implementing USW led Germany to take certain actions, the chief of which was the Zimmerman Telegram, which had the opposite effect of opening the flood gates for the importation of US war materials.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's basically the Neutrality Acts. The thinking behind them and the public support for them won't be around until after WW1 when "everyone knew" that the US was suckered into fighting the war by bankers and armaments manufacturers.

You're going have to come up with something before 1914 which makes that "idea" appear earlier.

The thinking behind them existed among some individuals, such as William Jennings Bryan, who did see US practices as violating the spirit of previous agreements. Now of course we know about his actual influence, so it would require some drastic changes and I don't really know what POD to include here other than an anti-British POTUS or Wilson that listens to Bryan enough to keep US banks from extending credit to prevent long term linking the fate of the country to Entente fortunes on the field.

I mean this thread as an exploratory what if, though I realize it is next to impossible to achieve. I cannot conceive of a way to realistically make this happen in context of the period. Its really hard to make the US stop wanting to make money, especially as loans were backed by collateral even in the event of an Entente outright defeat.

Nevertheless, I won't exactly say that US actions early in the war weren't pro-Entente. The effects certainly were, but the US as a country wasn't seeking to materially support the Entente or Central Powers, just make money. HOWEVER Wilson WAS trying to support the Entente in little ways, such as overlooking US citizens fighting in foreign armies, which by law would cause issues with their citizenship; there was also the issue of the blockade, which did interfere with the London Declaration in that the British decided to unilaterally redefine contraband as everything, something not covered in the treaty; finally his 14 points were decidedly pro-Entente as most territory to be given back (Alsace-Lorraine, all parts of Russia, all Polish areas, Italian areas of AH) were not to be even given a plebiscite to ask what they wanted and all ethnic groups given freedom to decide their own future (mainly in AH and Ottoman Empire) were in Central Powers nations, but nearly none in Entente nations, which left multinational and oppressive regimes in the Entente free to do as they wished (Russian empire, Britain with Ireland, France with Corsica and Breton, not to mention the efforts to suppress regionalism throughout the nation, often through violating human rights).

So Wilson and part of his administration were pro-Entente, anti-Central Powers, but only insofar as it kept the US neutral and making money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The entente was HUGELY dependent on American materials (half of British rifles, smokeless powder and a number of other vital war making materials for example). The entente would have fallen apart by 1916 without american loans and would have been hamstrung in their operations due to a lack of weapons (and thats including the British buying from everyone else who was neutral too like Spain)
 
Top